Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2022 / Logic and conversation: The case of free choice

Logic and conversation: The case of free choice

Paper · 2022 · Maria Aloni

Summary

The paper addresses free choice (FC): the observation that a disjunctive permission, such as being allowed to visit either the beach or the cinema, is understood as granting both permissions. Classical modal logic does not support this step, and Kamp (1973) showed that adding it as an axiom would let any permission follow from any other. Aloni argues that the standard Gricean design, with literal semantics first and implicature computed afterwards, fits FC poorly. FC is hard to cancel, cheap to process, learned early, and feels like part of what was said, which sets it apart from scalar implicature.

Her alternative is Bilateral State-based Modal Logic (BSML). It is a team-semantics logic in which formulas are evaluated on sets of worlds, and each connective has both an assertion clause and a rejection clause. The pragmatic ingredient is "neglect-zero": interpreters ignore models that make a sentence true only because of an empty configuration. This tendency is encoded with the non-emptiness atom ne inside an enrichment function. The function derives FC in positive contexts and cancels it under negation, without using alternatives. The work shows that pragmatic effects can be stated inside a precise logic.

Key points

  • Table 1 contrasts FC with scalar implicature:

    • processing cost: low for FC, high for scalar implicature (Chemla & Bott 2014);
    • acquisition: early for FC, late for scalar implicature (Tieu et al. 2016);
    • cancellation: FC resists it, while scalar implicature allows it.

  • Neglect-zero is motivated by cognitive evidence:

    • zero's special status in number cognition (Nieder 2016);
    • Aristotelian existential import;
    • the higher processing difficulty of downward-monotonic quantifiers (Bott, Schlotterbeck & Klein 2019).

  • With the enrichment [ ]+ the logic proves:

    • narrow-scope FC;
    • wide-scope FC, if the accessibility relation R is indisputable;
    • dual prohibition and double-negation FC;
    • modal disjunction, if R is state-based.

  • The logic also predicts that ◇¬(α∧β) yields no FC, even though it is equivalent to ◇(¬α∨¬β). In other words, the enrichment is detachable.

  • The paper compares several systems:

    SystemWhat it is
    BSMLthe base logic
    BSML∗BSML without the empty state
    BSML+global enrichment
    BSML∅classical modal logic
    BSML◇local, conventionalized enrichment

    Only BSML∗ predicts Negative FC. A conservative extension of BSML was axiomatized by Anttila (2021).

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Each connective gets separate truth (support) and falsity (rejection) conditions, and negation simply swaps them, so pragmatic enrichments are cancelled correctly under negation instead of leaking through.
  • I2. A single default ("ignore empty witnesses") replaces an alternatives-based machinery and is added as an explicit, inspectable constraint (ne) on top of literal meaning.
  • I3. The paper keeps one logic with switchable variants (literal-only, global enrichment, local enrichment, no empty state), so the literal and enriched predictions of the same sentence can be compared directly.
  • I4. Logically equivalent forms can differ pragmatically (detachability), so enrichment must act on surface structure, not on a normalized formula.
  • I5. Inference types are classified by a property grid: derivable from conversation, cancellable, embeddable, processing cost, acquisition age.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): Implicature rules in crate prag could attach both an assert-condition and a reject-condition to every frame, so negated permissions produce dual prohibition rather than spurious free-choice readings.
  • I2 (world): When building the world of a text from "every square is black", the system could assume a non-empty set of squares as a marked, defeasible fact, keeping existential import explainable and retractable.
  • I3 (learn): Evaluation could run readers in literal and enriched modes side by side, using the literal mode as a negative control that should fail exactly on FC-type test items.
  • I4 (tree): Pragmatic rules should be keyed to the UD tree's actual shape (disjunction under a modal, below or above negation) rather than to a canonicalized logical form, preserving these distinctions.
  • I5 (frames): Each inference produced by prag could carry such property tags, so the system can explain whether a conclusion is cancellable and how firmly to hold it when answering.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of AmsterdamAmsterdam · Netherlands144 works · 173,906 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 16,667 worksArtificial Intelligence · 16,194 worksArts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Implicature · 138 works

Cite

Cite as Maria Aloni. 2022. Logic and conversation: The case of free choice. Semantics and Pragmatics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.15.5

@article{aloni2022logic,
  title = {{Logic and conversation: The case of free choice}},
  author = {Maria Aloni},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.15.5},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.15.5}
}

References

94 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Aher, Martin. 2012. Free choice in deontic inquisitive semantics. In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit W. Sassoon, Katrin Schulz & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Logic, language, and meaning: Selected papers from the 18th Amsterdam colloquium, vol. 7218. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_3. ↗
  2. Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15. 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9010-2. ↗
  3. Aloni, Maria. 2018. Fc disjunction in state-based semantics. Unpublished manuscript, available at https://www.marialoni.org/resources/Aloni2018.pd f. Aloni, Maria & Marco Degano. 2022. (Non-)specificity across languages: Constancy, variation, 𝑣-variation. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 32. 185–205. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5337. ↗
  4. Aloni, Maria & Peter van Ormondt. 2023. Modified numerals and split disjunction: The first-order case. Journal of Logic, Language and Information. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-023-09399-w. ↗
  5. Aloni, Maria & Angelika Port. 2010. Epistemic indefinites crosslinguistically. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 40. https://www.marialoni.org/re sources/AloniPort2010.pdf. ↗
  6. Aloni, Maria & Angelika Port. 2015. Epistemic indefinites and methods of identifications. In Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds.), Epistemic indefinites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.10 93/acprof:oso/9780199665297.003.0006. ↗
  7. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. https://semanticsarchive.net/Arc hive/TVkY2ZlM/. ↗
  8. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9 048-4. ↗
  9. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2015. Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665297.001.0001. ↗
  10. Maria Aloni Anttila, Aleksi. 2021. The logic of free choice: Axiomatizations of state-based modal logics. Institute for Logic Language & Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam MA thesis. https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/1788/. ↗
  11. Bar-Lev, Moshe E. & Danny Fox. 2020. Free choice, simplification, and innocent inclusion. Natural Language Semantics 28. 175–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09162-y. ↗
  12. Barker, Chris. 2010. Free choice permission as resource sensitive reasoning. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(10). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.10. ↗
  13. Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 78(11). 668–691. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026578. ↗
  14. Berto, Franz. 2015. A modality called ‘negation’. Mind 124. 761–793. https://d oi.org/10.1093/mind/fzv026. ↗
  15. Bott, Oliver, Fabian Schlotterbeck & Udo Klein. 2019. Empty-set effects in quantifier interpretation. Journal of Semantics 36. 99–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy015. ↗
  16. Burgess, John P. 2003. A remark on Henkin sentences and their contraries. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44. 185–188. https://doi.org/10.130 5/ndjfl/1091030856. ↗
  17. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2008. Présuppositions et implicatures scalaires: Études formelles et expérimentales. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) dissertation. find
  18. Chemla, Emmanuel. 2009. Universal implicatures and free choice effects: Experimental data. Semantics & Pragmatics 2(2). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3 765/sp.2.2. ↗
  19. Chemla, Emmanuel & Lewis Bott. 2014. Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition. 380– 396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.013. ↗
  20. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2013. Scalar implicature as a grammatical phenomenon. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2297–2331. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253382.2297. ↗
  21. Ciardelli, Ivano. 2016. Questions in logic. Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam dissertation. https://doi.org/1 1245/1.518411. ↗
  22. Ciardelli, Ivano, Liz Coppock & Floris Roelofsen. 2018. Implicatures of modified numerals: Quality or quantity? Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 21. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/138. Logic and conversation Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2014. Information, issues, and attention. In Daniel Gutzmann, Jan Köpping & Cécile Meier (eds.), Approaches to meaning: Composition, values, and interpretation, 128–166. Brill. https://doi.org/11245/1.434077. ↗
  23. Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen. 2018. Inquisitive semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9 780198814788.001.0001. ↗
  24. Ciardelli, Ivano & Floris Roelofsen. 2011. Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40(1). 55–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9142-6. ↗
  25. Ciardelli, Ivano, Linmin Zhang & Lucas Champollion. 2018. Two switches in the theory of counterfactuals: A study of truth conditionality and minimal change. Linguistics and Philosophy 41. 577–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-018-9232-4. ↗
  26. Coppock, Elisabeth & Thomas Brochhagen. 2013. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics 6(3). 1–57. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.3. ↗
  27. Cremers, Alexandre, Morwenna Hoeks, Grzegorz Lisowski & Jonathan Pesetsky. 2017. Experimental evidence for a semantic account of free choice. Presentation at Chicago Linguistics Society 53. https://people.ucsc.edu/~mhoeks/slidesFC.pdf. ↗
  28. Cresswell, M.J. 2004. Possibility semantics for intuitionistic logic. Australasian Journal of Logic 2. 11–29. https://doi.org/10.26686/ajl.v2i0.1764. ↗
  29. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(2). 159–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100 5330227480. ↗
  30. Dekker, Pul. 2012. Dynamic semantics. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4869-9. ↗
  31. Fine, Kit. 2017. Truthmaker semantics. In B. Hale, C. Wright & A. Miller (eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language, 556–77. Malden: Wiley. https ://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972090.ch22. ↗
  32. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics, 71–120. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_4. van Fraassen, Bas. 1966. Singular terms, truth-value gaps and free logic. Journal of Philosophy 63(17). 28–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024549. ↗
  33. Maria Aloni van Fraassen, Bas. 1969. Facts and tautological entailments. Journal of Philosophy 66(15). 477–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024563. ↗
  34. Franke, Michael. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics & Pragmatics 4(1). 1–82. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.1. ↗
  35. Fusco, Melissa. 2019. Sluicing on free choice. Semantics and Pragmatics 12. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.20. ↗
  36. Galliani, Pietro. 2015. Upwards closed dependencies in team semantics. Information and Computation 245. 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2 015.06.008. ↗
  37. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press. find
  38. Geurts, Bart. 2005. Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13. 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-2 052-4. ↗
  39. Geurts, Bart & Rick Nouwen. 2007. At least et al. The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83(3). 533–559. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.01 15. ↗
  40. Gil, David. 1991. Aristotle goes to Arizona, and finds a language without and. In Dietmar Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110870527-007. ↗
  41. Goldstein, Simon. 2019. Free choice and homogeneity. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(23). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.23. ↗
  42. Gotzner, Nicole, Jacopo Romoli & Paolo Santorio. 2020. Choice and prohibition in non-monotonic contexts. Natural Language Semantics 28. 141– 174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09160-9. ↗
  43. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003. ↗
  44. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. find
  45. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF006283 04. ↗
  46. Groenendijk, Jeroen, Martin Stokhof & Frank Veltman. 1996. Coreference and modality. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (Blackwell handbooks in linguistics), 179–216. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/11245/1.123522. Logic and conversation Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  47. Hawke, Peter & Shane Steinert-Threlkeld. 2018. Informational dynamics of epistemic possibility modals. Synthese 195(10). 4309–4342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1216-8. ↗
  48. Holliday, Wesley H. 2015. Possibility frames and forcing for modal logic. UC Berkeley Working Paper in Logic and the Methodology of Science, 2015. find
  49. Horn, Larry. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context, 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10822/555477. ↗
  50. Humberstone, I.L. 1981. From worlds to possibilities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10(3). 313–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00293423. ↗
  51. Incurvati, Luca & Julian Schlöder. 2017. Weak rejection. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95(4). 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2016.12 77771. ↗
  52. Jayez, Jacques & Lucia Tovena. 2006. Epistemic determiners. Journal of Semantics 23(3). 217–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl002. ↗
  53. Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental models. Cambridge University Press. find
  54. Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74. 57–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4544849. ↗
  55. Kaufmann, Magda. 2016. Free choice as a form of dependence. Natural Language Semantics 24(3). 247–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-91 25-4. ↗
  56. Klinedinst, Nathan. 2006. Plurality and possibility. University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. find
  57. Kolodny, Niko & John MacFarlane. 2010. Ifs and oughts. Journal of Philosophy 107(3). 115–143. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2010107310. ↗
  58. Kontinen, Juha & Jouko Väänänen. 2011. A remark on negation in dependence logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 52(1). 55–65. https://doi.org/1 0.1215/00294527-2010-036. ↗
  59. Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), The 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, 1–25. Hituzi Syobo. A revised version was published in Kratzer & Shimoyama 2017. find
  60. Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2017. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar Maria Aloni implicatures (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (SNLT) 91), 123–143. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7. ↗
  61. Larson, Richard. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 217–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133841. ↗
  62. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97 80511813313. ↗
  63. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/1 0.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001. ↗
  64. Lokhorst, Gert-Jan. 2006. Andersonian deontic logic, propositional quantification, and Mally. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 47(3). 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1163775445. ↗
  65. Mandelkern, Matthew. 2017. Coordination in conversation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. https://doi.org/1721.1/112421. ↗
  66. Marty, Paul, Jacopo Romoli, Yasutada Sudo & Richard Breheny. 2021. Negative free choice. Semantics & Pragmatics 14(13). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.1 4.13. ↗
  67. Mastop, Rosja. 2005. What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory. University of Amsterdam dissertation. https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/epri nt/2045. ↗
  68. Mkrtychian, Nadezhda, Evgeny Blagovechtchenski, Diana Kurmakaeva, Daria Gnedykh, Svetlana Kostromina & Yury Shtyrov. 2019. Concrete vs. abstract semantics: From mental representations to functional brain mapping. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhu m.2019.00267. ↗
  69. Nieder, Andreas. 2016. Representing something out of nothing: The dawning of zero. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20. 830–842. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.tics.2016.08.008. ↗
  70. Ninan, Dilip. 2005. Two puzzles about deontic necessity. In Jon Gajewski, Valentine Hacquard, Bernard Nickel & Seth Yalcin (eds.), New work on modality, 149–178. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Working Papers in Linguistics. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WZlNTg0Y/. ↗
  71. Paivio, Allan. 1965. Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4. 32– 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80064-0. Logic and conversation Roelofsen, Floris. 2013. A bare bone attentive semantics for might. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of 𝜙, ?𝜙, and ◇𝜙, 190–215. Institute for Logic, Language & Computation. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/p apers/25_Roelofsen.pdf. ↗
  72. Romoli, Jacopo & Paolo Santorio. 2019. Filtering free choice. Semantics and Pragmatics 12. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.12. ↗
  73. Ross, Alf. 1941. Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7. 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1 111/j.1755-2567.1941.tb00034.x. ↗
  74. Rumfitt, Ian. 2000. “Yes” and “No”. Mind 109. 781–823. https://doi.org/10.1 093/mind/109.436.781. ↗
  75. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378 .71748.db. ↗
  76. Schulz, Katrin. 2005. A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese 147. 343–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-1353-y. ↗
  77. Schwarz, Bernard. 2016. Consistency preservation in quantity implicature: The case of at least. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(1). 1–47. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.1. ↗
  78. Simons, Mandy. 2000. Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of disjunction. New York: Garland. find
  79. Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/ or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3). 271–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2900-7. ↗
  80. Simons, Mandy. 2010. A gricean view on intrusive implicatures. In Klaus Petrus (ed.), Meaning and analysis: New essays on H. Paul Grice, 138–169. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230282117_6. ↗
  81. Smiley, Timothy. 1996. Rejection. Analysis 56(1). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.109 3/analys/56.1.1. ↗
  82. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.) Blackwell Publishing. find
  83. Stalnaker, Robert. 1975. Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5(3). 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379021. ↗
  84. Starr, W. 2016. Expressing permission. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26. 325–349. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3832. ↗
  85. Maria Aloni Tieu, Lyn, Cory Bill & Jacopo Romoli. 2019. Homogeneity or implicature: An experimental investigation of free choice. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 29. 706–726. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4631. ↗
  86. Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou & Stephen Crain. 2016. Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33(2). 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv001. ↗
  87. Väänänen, Jouko. 2007. Dependence logic: A new approach to independence friendly logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/1 0.1017/CBO9780511611193. ↗
  88. Väänänen, Jouko. 2008. Modal dependence logic. In Krzysztof R. Apt & Robert van Rooij (eds.), New perspectives on games and interaction, 237–254. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/11245/1.300509. ↗
  89. Veltman, Frank. 1996. Defaults in Update Semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25. 221–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248150. ↗
  90. Westera, Matthijs. 2013. Where the air is thin, but the view so much clearer. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), The dynamic, inquisitive, and visionary life of 𝜙, ?𝜙, and ◇𝜙, 300–316. Institute for Logic, Language & Computation. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festsch rift-JMF/papers/37_Westera.pdf. ↗
  91. Willer, Malte. 2018. Simplifying with free choice. Topoi 37(3). 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9437-5. von Wright, Georg Henrik. 1968. An essay on deontic logic and the theory of action. North Holland Publishing Co. https://www.worldcat.org/title/513 847. ↗
  92. Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116(464). 983–1026. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzm983. ↗
  93. Yang, Fan & Jouko Väänänen. 2017. Propositional team logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 168(7). 1406–1441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.201 7.01.007. ↗
  94. Zimmermann, Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8. 255–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011 255819284. Maria Aloni Science Park 107 1098 XG Amsterdam The Netherlands m.d.aloni@uva.nl ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/aloni-2022-logic-conversation-case-free-choice/